Yashasvi Jaiswal's dismissal sparked a controversy.
Credit: Reuters Photo
Madhu Jawali: Yashasvi Jaiswal's debatable dismissal at a crucial stage of the Boxing Day Test in the Border-Gavaskar Trophy divided opinions but the Indian skipper Rohit Sharma played down the issue from snowballing into a bigger controversy by stating that the Indian opener might have nicked the ball.
But Rohit was quick to add that his team often was the victim of close calls involving technology.
Jaiswal (84, 208b, 310m, 8x4) was going strong when Pat Cummins' bouncer on his body had the southpaw attempting a hook which sailed into the hands of a diving Alex Carey. The Aussie players immediately went up in appeal only to see on-field umpire Joel Wilson remaining unmoved. Aussies went for review and third umpire Saikat Sharfuddoula ruled Jaiswal out despite no spike on the snicko. The Bangladesh umpire relied on the ball-deflection evidence.
"I don't know what to make of it because the technology didn't show anything but with the naked eye it seemed like he did touch something," Rohit said after the match. "I don't know how the umpires want to use the technology but in all fairness, I think he did touch the ball."
The skipper then went on to rue how such decisions often came against India.
"It's about the technology which we all know is not 100 percent. But again we don't really want to look too much into that. It's just that we are more often than not falling on the wrong side of it. It's been happening, so we have been a bit unfortunate," he said.
Cummins defends third umpire
Aussie skipper Cummins, meanwhile, defended the third umpire's decision and asserted that Jaiswal's body language gave it away (that he had nicked it).
“I think it was just clear that he hit it, heard a noise, saw a deviation, so it was absolutely certain that he hit it. As soon as we referred it you could see him drop his head and basically acknowledge that he hit it. On the screen, you can see he hit it. Ultra-edge, I don’t think anyone has complete confidence in and didn’t really show much but fortunately, there’s enough other evidence to show it was clearly out.”